Package: lapack3-doc
Version: 3.0.20000531a-5
Severity: normal

Hi

i have lapack-doc and lapack3-doc from an old times when they
where seemingly not conflicting. 

Since a few monthes i have let it go by holding the package (i
did not know if lapack and lapack3 where both supposed to reach
sarge).

When letting it upgrade i end up with :
Preparing to replace lapack-doc 3.0.20000531a-25 (using
.../lapack-doc_3.0.20000531a-26_all.deb) ...
Document `lapack-doc.qref' is not installed, cannot remove.
Document `lapack-doc.release' is not installed, cannot remove.
Document `lapack-doc.faq' is not installed, cannot remove.
Document `lapack-doc.lug' is not installed, cannot remove.
Unpacking replacement lapack-doc ...
dpkg: error processing
/var/cache/apt/archives/lapack-doc_3.0.20000531a-26_all.deb
(--unpack):
 trying to overwrite `/usr/share/man/man3/cgbequ.3.gz', which is
also in package lapack3-doc
dpkg-deb: subprocess paste killed by signal (Broken pipe)
Errors were encountered while processing:
 /var/cache/apt/archives/lapack-doc_3.0.20000531a-26_all.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)



But lapack3-doc is now in testing when lapack-doc is already in
sarge.
As i don't know the severity for a will happen bug in sarge, i
let it on normal ...

Most package that i knwo which Replace another also conflict with it.
Maybe this could be used for lapack3-doc (i don't know if
lapack-doc should also replace/conflict lapack3-doc, but it looks
safer to me as both will end up in the stable release).

Please close the bug if i misunderstood your plan. I don't really
understand why both atlas2/lapack3 and atlas3/lapack end up in
the stable release .

Regards
Alban


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-rc5-mm.1
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=UTF-8)

-- no debconf information



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to